Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: part 2

Hoaglin, D. C. et al. (2011) Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: part 2. Value in Health, 14(4), pp. 429-437. (doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011) (PMID:21669367)

Full text not currently available from Enlighten.

Abstract

Evidence-based health care decision making requires comparison of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best treatment(s). Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case of network meta-analysis, combine direct evidence and indirect evidence for particular pairwise comparisons, thereby synthesizing a greater share of the available evidence than traditional meta-analysis. This report from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices Task Force provides guidance on technical aspects of conducting network meta-analyses (our use of this term includes most methods that involve meta-analysis in the context of a network of evidence). We start with a discussion of strategies for developing networks of evidence. Next we briefly review assumptions of network meta-analysis. Then we focus on the statistical analysis of the data: objectives, models (fixed-effects and random-effects), frequentist versus Bayesian approaches, and model validation. A checklist highlights key components of network meta-analysis, and substantial examples illustrate indirect treatment comparisons (both frequentist and Bayesian approaches) and network meta-analysis. A further section discusses eight key areas for future research.

Item Type:Articles
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Hawkins, Professor Neil
Authors: Hoaglin, D. C., Hawkins, N., Jansen, J. P., Scott, D. A., Itzler, R., Cappelleri, J. C., Boersma, C., Thompson, D., Larholt, K. M., Diaz, M., and Barrett, A.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > Institute of Health and Wellbeing > Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment
Journal Name:Value in Health
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:1098-3015
ISSN (Online):1524-4733

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record